|
Post by stabcaesar on Jun 10, 2018 12:49:50 GMT
Maggie Smith has the most triple crown awards (7) and the most triple crown nominations (18) of the triple crown winners so by this measure she's the winner. Followed by Helen Mirren with the same amount of nominations and 6 wins.
Smith's number is greatly inflated by Downton Abbey though.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 10, 2018 13:17:58 GMT
Would that just be for actresses or was that overall? I know Olivier would have 6 - 5 Emmy's and an Oscar........Pacino has 5 total (2 Tony's (one in Support), 2 Emmy, 1 Oscar). That's interesting though!
I was a little hesitant to make it about that since I feel the Triple Crown is a bit of a lie too - not that it applies much here to these performers but I think to win Best Actor/Actress like say Lange has done recently and Jackson will do tonight is harder to do than to have one of your wins or two (or three) be for Supporting.
The other part of that is that it puts to great a value on the American Awards unfairly - for example, Olivier who I think is the gold standard for men couldn't really get nominated for a lot of Tony's, he appeared on Broadway, but its not reflective of his great theater achievements. Similarly, that applies for Hopkins too...........and you could extend that to TV overall vs. American TV as well.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Jun 10, 2018 13:22:06 GMT
Would that just be for actresses or was that overall? I know Olivier would have 6 - 5 Emmy's and an Oscar........Pacino has 5 total (2 Tony's (one in Support), 2 Emmy, 1 Oscar). That's interesting though! I was a little hesitant to make it about that since I feel the Triple Crown is a bit of a lie too - not that it applies much here to these performers but I think to win Best Actor/Actress like say Lange has done recently and Jackson will do tonight is harder to do than to have one of your wins or two (or three) be for Supporting. The other part of that is that it puts to great a value on the American Awards unfairly - for example, Olivier who I think is the gold standard for men couldn't really get nominated for a lot of Tony's, he appeared on Broadway, but its not reflective of his great theater achievements. Similarly, that applies for Hopkins too...........and you could extend that to TV overall vs. American TV as well. It's overall. There's a wikipedia page dedicated to it. Maggie Smith is the only performer in history to have won 7 awards and Helen Mirren is the only performer to have won all three British equilavent awards as well. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Crown_of_Acting
|
|
|
Post by sirjeremy on Jun 10, 2018 17:11:04 GMT
Mulligan is a good one and has already done work across all 3. She seems very picky about projects she doesn't just take anything it seems. Mirren was mentioned in passing in my opening post - but what's really interesting is in that opening post, I asked if Streep's film achievements almost by themselves put her in a different class - 2 Emmy's and some impressive stage work, but a huge film career of course, but now, I'm not so sure of that because: Mirren/Dench/Smith/Glenda Jackson/Redgrave make it arguable which of those British actresses is in fact the most distinguished across all 3 mediums and then, by extension where they rank relative to Streep too. Tonight with Glenda Jackson winning (unless there's some sort of disastrous surprise) will have many people calling her the worlds greatest actress I suppose - her re-emergence in the theater (how cool is that?) the last few years with King Lear and Three Tall Women almost by itself makes this whole discussion more relevant and timely. Jackson didn't act for almost twenty-five years, though, so whilst her renaissance is remarkable, comparing her to some of her peers who started out pretty much the same time as she did and who've acted more consistently than she has isn't worthwhile, I feel. I know the Emmy's are at the top of the TV hierarchy of awards, but (and I don't think this is what you're saying) ranking Dench more lowly than, say, Smith or Redgrave just because she doesn't have an Emmy is silly when you consider the acclaim she received for her TV work right back since the 60's, in the U.K, anyway, and the versatility she demonstrated in many of those parts, so maybe awards attention isn't the most valid way to measure who's the 'best'?. The pedant in me must add, however, that she ties with Julie Walters as winning more BAFTA's for her TV work (four) than any other actress .
|
|
|
Post by Sharbs on Jun 10, 2018 23:26:04 GMT
/porn
MsMovieStar
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 12:52:44 GMT
pacinoyes : Nathaniel Rogers over at The Film Experience blog just compiled a really exhaustive piece on the Triple Crown here. Definitely check it out. I'll quote some of his findings below: The actors who are closest to being Triple Crowned - Only missing the Oscar which is obviously the hardest to win!: (number of Oscar nominations *acting only* in parentheses) Jane Alexander (4), Mary Alice (0), Christine Baranski (0), Ellen Barkin (0), Stockard Channing (1), Kristin Chenowith (0), Glenn Close (7), Bryan Cranston (1), Tyne Daly (0), Blythe Danner (0), Dick Van Dyke (0), Laurence Fishburne (1), Neil Patrick Harris (0), Rosemary Harris (1), George Hearn (0), Judd Hirsch (1), Hal Holbrook (1), Cherry Jones (0), Shirley Knight (2), Swoosie Kurtz (0), Anthony LaPaglia (0), John Larroquette (0), Ron Leibman (0), John Lithgow (2), Laurie Metcalf (1), Debra Monk (0), Michael Moriarty (0), Bebe Neuwirth (0), Cynthia Nixon (0), Mary-Louise Parker (0), Mandy Patinkin (0), David Hyde Pierce (0), Amanda Plummer (0), Diana Rigg (0), Tony Shalhoub (0), Cicely Tyson (1), and Jeffrey Wright (0) Only missing the Tony: (number of Tony nominations in parentheses. If they haven't done any theater in New York in the last 25 years they have an x after the parentheses... the people with an x will never triple crown because they never do Broadway or stopped doing it after becoming famous or retired from acting or whatnot) Patricia Arquette (0)x, Kathy Bates (1)x, Halle Berry (0)x, Michael Douglas (0)x, Faye Dunaway (0)x, Sally Field (1), Jane Fonda (2), Louis Gossett Jr (0), Anne Hathaway (0), Dustin Hoffman (1), Anthony Hopkins (0)x, Helen Hunt (0), Holly Hunter (0), Allison Janney (2), Tommy Lee Jones (0)x, Nicole Kidman (0), Cloris Leachman (0)x, Melissa Leo (0), Julianne Moore (0), Gwyneth Paltrow (0)x, Eva Marie Saint (0)x, Meryl Streep (1), Emma Thompson (0)x, Dianne Wiest (0), Kate Winslet (0)x, and Joanne Woodward (0)x Only missing the Emmy: (number of Emmy *acting only* nominations in parentheses) Judi Dench (3), Joel Grey (1), Marcia Gay Harden (2), Kevin Kline (2), Eddie Redmayne (0), Mercedes Ruehl (0), Mark Rylance (1), Kevin Spacey (6), Denzel Washington (0), and Catherine Zeta-Jones (0) ----- Annette Bening, Ed Harris, Mark Ruffalo, and Sigourney Weaver have nominations throughout all three awards bodies with no wins in any.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Jun 13, 2018 13:40:51 GMT
^I'm guessing Kevin Spacey can be attached a cross now.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 13, 2018 19:05:33 GMT
That's an interesting and handy list! I think it is a fake stat in some ways the TC - like I've said before I think that Supporting wins are cheating in comparison to someone with Lead wins - I mean its impressive but not as impressive and also I think it can be a cheat if you have a win in multiple mediums for the same role - like Paul Scofield has the Oscar and Tony for the same role (A Man For All Seasons).......but then again not everyone is as weird as I am with this kind of stuff
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 13, 2018 19:49:28 GMT
That's an interesting and handy list! I think it is a fake stat in some ways the TC - like I've said before I think that Supporting wins are cheating in comparison to someone with Lead wins - I mean its impressive but not as impressive and also I think it can be a cheat if you have a win in multiple mediums for the same role - like Paul Scofield has the Oscar and Tony for the same role (A Man For All Seasons).......but then again not everyone is as weird as I am with this kind of stuff Eh, it just feels to me like you're handicapping just to put Pacino in a more "elite" category. A win is a win, no matter how you cut it. It's impressive that someone is able to coup the leading prizes across three different media, but I think it's really dismissive of featured/supporting actors who don't have the benefit to be able to score a whole lot of leading roles in television or especially film. If Mark Rylance had won the Emmy for Wolf Hall (as he should have), then would we be arguing he's "lesser" than Pacino just because his Oscar win is a supporting one, especially as someone like Rylance wouldn't have had the benefit of strong cinematic leading roles the way Pacino did? And I absolutely don't think it's a cheat that someone like Scofield won for the same role twice. Different media, and likely different styles. I've not seen footage of his Sir Thomas on stage, so I can't be sure, but there are ways to play it for the stage and ways to play it for the screen, and he nailed the latter aspect perfectly. Just my thoughts on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Jun 13, 2018 20:06:54 GMT
That's an interesting and handy list! I think it is a fake stat in some ways the TC - like I've said before I think that Supporting wins are cheating in comparison to someone with Lead wins - I mean its impressive but not as impressive and also I think it can be a cheat if you have a win in multiple mediums for the same role - like Paul Scofield has the Oscar and Tony for the same role (A Man For All Seasons).......but then again not everyone is as weird as I am with this kind of stuff I don't see how can supporting wins be considered cheating when there are so many supporting roles that are borderline leading and when there are so many category frauds across all three media. I guess you can call those who've won an Oscar with a couple of brief scenes or a guest Emmy win cheating, but that is clearly not the case most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 13, 2018 21:49:53 GMT
stephen - I'm still sorting out my feelings on you calling Rosemary's Baby overrated so forgive me if I FREAK OUT, but I wouldn't say this actually : "A win is a win" - no it's not - Ralph Fiennes in Hamlet isn't the same as any barely adequate supporting Tony's I've seen. I wouldn't say that a supporting win in general is "cheating" which stabcaesar commented on - but I damn sure would say that Al Pacino is in a more elite category than Jack Albertson say and I would say that playing 3 unique roles is harder than filming your Tony winning piece ala Scofield to a win. I'm not saying it's not impressive what Scofield did but it's less so than creating another memorable character. The reason that Lead is more impressive is it's harder to achieve the position in your career to star across all mediums and if you don't think it is, why does the amount decrease when you limit it to that? It's because movie stars don't do it to maintain that movie stardom - it's because it's harder to be a big league star/character actor - and I am including female heavy hitters here - like Lange and Mirren. I mean Rylance wouldn't had the benefit of strong cinematic roles like Pacino in your example but guys like Pacino have to carry that burden too - and in general it's tough to do that and win in that top category across all 3.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 13, 2018 22:16:11 GMT
stephen - I'm still sorting out my feelings on you calling Rosemary's Baby overrated so forgive me if I FREAK OUT, but I wouldn't say this actually : "A win is a win" - no it's not - Ralph Fiennes in Hamlet isn't the same as any barely adequate supporting Tony's I've seen. I wouldn't say that a supporting win in general is "cheating" which stabcaesar commented on - but I damn sure would say that Al Pacino is in a more elite category than Jack Albertson say and I would say that playing 3 unique roles is harder than filming your Tony winning piece ala Scofield to a win. I'm not saying it's not impressive what Scofield did but it's less so than creating another memorable character. The reason that Lead is more impressive is it's harder to achieve the position in your career to star across all mediums and if you don't think it is, why does the amount decrease when you limit it to that? It's because movie stars don't do it to maintain that movie stardom - it's because it's harder to be a big league star/character actor - and I am including female heavy hitters here - like Lange and Mirren. I mean Rylance wouldn't had the benefit of strong cinematic roles like Pacino in your example but guys like Pacino have to carry that burden too - and in general it's tough to do that and win in that top category across all 3. It is overrated and I will say it again and again until the cows come home. I'm fine with other people praising it as a masterpiece if that's what they feel, but I don't have to be part of that litany, just like I don't have to agree that Meryl Streep is the greatest actress alive (she isn't) or that The Last Jedi ruined Star Wars (it's the best film of the franchise). I think that when it comes to comparing someone like Pacino versus someone like Albertson, you wind up really underrating the latter. Sure, Albertson doesn't really have any iconic performances to his name unless you're a big Grandpa Joe/ Chico and the Man fan, but the guy was hugely respected on the stage. Problem is, Pacino's main claim to fame has always been more mainstream than Albertson's because he rose to prominence in the era of film and hence had more "profile" because he was more identifiable to the masses. I concede the point that someone like Pacino was able to create three distinct roles in his wins, but I also think you have to accept that Pacino, deserving though he may have been for both of his Emmys, benefited from his status as being, well, "Al Pacino." Angels in America was such a juggernaut and he was a part of the reason why it was, but if you replace Pacino with, say, Nathan Lane, you probably still see whoever played Roy Cohn take it home. It's an insanely good role and with the right director/material, anyone can be great. But that's beside the point. Yes, it's very impressive that Pacino won three leading prizes across three different media and he deserves all the credit for it, but I don't think that makes him more accomplished or better than guys who made their careers out of being character actors. But that's me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 22:21:36 GMT
pacinoyes - So, in other words, would you say that Deborah Kerr’s six leading Oscar nominations “mean” more than Thelma Ritter’s six supporting Oscar nominations? If/when Streep ties Katharine Hepburn’s four Oscar wins, will it mean less because at least one of them will have been a Supporting win?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 13, 2018 23:33:43 GMT
Well you just have to think "What does the award "mean""? Deborah Kerr's 6 nominations do mean more than Ritter's - she cuts a deeper path in cinema history - and comparing Oscar "wins" or nods across eras is BS in general. I say it all the time - movies do not mean what they meant and they never will - the culture means something else now, the Oscars are not cross-equivalent and can quite easily be bought now too - and yes I mean MORE easily - and don't even start me on the Tony's which are now a fake award in many ways imo, and the Emmy's which try to cover way too much. But Streep would mean something else too - the competition amount is better in general now so that's the important point not the specific number. But all mean awards as stupid as they are mean something - you just have to look closer. The argument that stephen made is one I sort of made in the Tony thread about Tony-begging when you are at a certain level or Emmy begging or Oscar begging - at a certain point it is a given Pacino was going to win if he did TV - but you also still have to go and do the work and most do not do it. Look at some actors that are "close" and think what's it "mean"?. Michael Douglas - not a fave of mine, at all, 1 Oscar nod 1 win, 1 Emmy nod 1 win, like he's a Tony away from the TC and if he got it, I would say so f'n what? What would that TC represent but dumb luck (to me)...........so I'm not a big fan of the way of the way people talk about it like it makes all TC winners equivalent. You have to look closer - I mean in some of these cases there is stuff that can't be replicated - to match Maggie Smith you need a looooooooong career.........to match Olivier's 5 Emmy's well that is hard to imagine but you have to bring a big name/big rep etc. So in some ways it excludes people more than includes them - and the closer you look at the TC winners you find lots of sub-groups to separate them into.............if your heart desires
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 17, 2018 15:03:29 GMT
Tilting back to living American actors and mentioned in the theater thread - James Earl Jones - not much of a big imprint in films but dependable and very major in theater and successful in TV in Supporting roles too - and Laurence Fishburne, somewhat similar though less in overall career achievement at present.
Jones is close to the 2nd group level tier Americans (currently) - not too far off in his own way behind Kevin Kline and Kevin Spacey really across all 3 mediums......again that absence of an Oscar makes him look initially further off than he really is.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 23, 2018 9:12:33 GMT
Another to consider and for Americans maybe leading some of the 3 categories would be Jack Lemmon though Lemmon doesn't have too much acclaimed stage work (more like he dabbled) but he did do it and got 2 Tony nominations in Lead.
Lemmon has of course a very lauded film career - some would call him America's finest film actor. I wouldn't go that far but do agree he balanced comedy with drama better than anyone ever, and has some all time work. Very consistent, not a lot of bad lows either.
On TV he's elite as well - 5 Emmy nods for TV/Film work with 1 win, several others of high quality good work too. For Americans, only the already mentioned Pacino (4th nomination coming likely, 2 wins) and Duvall (4 nominations, 1 win) can rival him for TV of guys that are also comparable film stars too.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 23, 2018 18:01:31 GMT
Another to consider and for Americans maybe leading some of the 3 categories would be Jack Lemmon though Lemmon doesn't have too much acclaimed stage work (more like he dabbled) but he did do it and got 2 Tony nominations in Lead. Lemmon has of course a very lauded film career - some would call him America's finest film actor. I wouldn't go that far but do agree he balanced comedy with drama better than anyone ever, and has some all time work. Very consistent, not a lot of bad lows either. On TV he's elite as well - 5 Emmy nods for TV/Film work with 1 win, several others of high quality good work too. For Americans, only the already mentioned Pacino (4th nomination coming likely, 2 wins) and Duvall (4 nominations, 1 win) can rival him for TV of guys that are also comparable film stars too. Lemmon should absolutely be in contention for the top spot, and he has become criminally underrated. I wonder if it's because in all of his years in the business, he never played tough badasses the way guys like Brando, Pacino, De Niro, etc. did. Lemmon excelled in pretty much every arena, but that was never a character archetype he tapped into (that I can recall).
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 23, 2018 19:27:09 GMT
Another to consider and for Americans maybe leading some of the 3 categories would be Jack Lemmon though Lemmon doesn't have too much acclaimed stage work (more like he dabbled) but he did do it and got 2 Tony nominations in Lead. Lemmon has of course a very lauded film career - some would call him America's finest film actor. I wouldn't go that far but do agree he balanced comedy with drama better than anyone ever, and has some all time work. Very consistent, not a lot of bad lows either. On TV he's elite as well - 5 Emmy nods for TV/Film work with 1 win, several others of high quality good work too. For Americans, only the already mentioned Pacino (4th nomination coming likely, 2 wins) and Duvall (4 nominations, 1 win) can rival him for TV of guys that are also comparable film stars too. Lemmon should absolutely be in contention for the top spot, and he has become criminally underrated. I wonder if it's because in all of his years in the business, he never played tough badasses the way guys like Brando, Pacino, De Niro, etc. did. Lemmon excelled in pretty much every arena, but that was never a character archetype he tapped into (that I can recall). It shouldn't neccesarily always be the case, but male actors are often worshipped specifically because they bring an aspirational quality to what we view as masculinity. Brando (and those in his footsteps like Dean and Newman) made it cool for guys to be both masculine and sensitive. DeNiro tapped into every potential psychotic impulse men have within their id, particularly in loners like Travis Bickle. Denzel Washington bleeds swagger, anger and intimidation. Men aspire to these qualities, and women often desire them (even though it's weird to say that about some of DeNiro's roles, it's true. The danger is attractive). Someone like Lemmon didn't have these qualities naturally. So he tended to play to the qualities he had. The beta-male, the nervous nebbish, the comedic worry wart. While he could do those extremely well, these are not neccesarily the qualities or archtypes that are seen as aspirational.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 23, 2018 21:08:11 GMT
Lemmon should absolutely be in contention for the top spot, and he has become criminally underrated. I wonder if it's because in all of his years in the business, he never played tough badasses the way guys like Brando, Pacino, De Niro, etc. did. Lemmon excelled in pretty much every arena, but that was never a character archetype he tapped into (that I can recall). It shouldn't neccesarily always be the case, but male actors are often worshipped specifically because they bring an aspirational quality to what we view as masculinity. Brando (and those in his footsteps like Dean and Newman) made it cool for guys to be both masculine and sensitive. DeNiro tapped into every potential psychotic impulse men have within their id, particularly in loners like Travis Bickle. Denzel Washington bleeds swagger, anger and intimidation. Men aspire to these qualities, and women often desire them (even though it's weird to say that about some of DeNiro's roles, it's true. The danger is attractive). Someone like Lemmon didn't have these qualities naturally. So he tended to play to the qualities he had. The beta-male, the nervous nebbish, the comedic worry wart. While he could do those extremely well, these are not neccesarily the qualities or archtypes that are seen as aspirational. Indeed, and I think that's grossly undervalues Lemmon's status in the pantheon. In terms of sheer consistency, he's one of the all-timers, and both of his Oscar wins are tops. I look at someone like Lemmon and think that even if he wasn't a physical powerhouse, he could've played a hitman or something in a serious existential drama and been pretty damned good.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 23, 2018 21:12:36 GMT
I agree on all that's been said on Lemmon so far, although you know he gets into that thing that not everybody loves him but everybody respects and likes him. In the old IMDB days Paul Newman and Lemmon finished 1-2 in a greatest actors of all time poll and I suspect if you did it with people of a certain age they'd win again now and even into the future. Certain actors like them never attract any negative attention and if you were to be critical of them it would almost be seen as mean and unnecessary. So he's underrated in some ways and overrated in others (or in modern language, the "Tom Hanks effect")
As an actor for the purposes of this thread's subject - which is not that deep for American males - he at least can stand his ground though. When he got older he went on to some big remake roles in TV and he was a perennial nominee right before his death so that's impressive too - even that was still the "movie star gets nominated era" but still he did the work. It's also impressive that he didn't bomb out on Broadway - he at least did it to at least some acclaim when he tried it and he tried it with seriousness of purpose.
The guys who are around now and feasting on great roles in this new Golden Age of TV - see the earlier post on Benedict Cumberbatch - are playing by different, more attractive and dynamic rules for TV but in some way, Lemmon was a bit ahead of the curve in what he was doing 20 years ago in what was available to him in that medium.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 26, 2018 11:30:26 GMT
Today I'd just like to mention a guy that arguably could be the greatest American - I mean he's certainly on the shortlist - in this thread topic even more than Lemmon maybe too and at the very least he is the most underrated (or under-mentioned?) great American actor ever and that's .............Jason Robards.
A 5 time Emmy nominee and winner, 2 time Oscar winner, an 8 time Tony nominee and 1 time winner - somewhat inflated in the era he worked on the stage in but still he could have had even more maybe - that's 4 times Denzel Washington's nominations and almost 3 times Pacino's too......I mean it's amazing no matter how you look at it.
In films he specialized in real life people Ben Bradlee, Howard Hughes, Dashiell Hammett and if those achievements aren't enough he had a great screen farewell role in Magnolia too.
I'm not so sure I'd rank him #1 for Americans myself but you basically have to put him in that running across all mediums - he distinguished himself in all 3 - maybe film hurts him because he didn't cut a huge path in it........but he was always exemplary in the actual work and always uniquely himself.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 26, 2018 21:34:36 GMT
Here is his work in commercials too Classic ......times have changed!
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 26, 2018 21:39:49 GMT
Today I'd just like to mention a guy that arguably could be the greatest American - I mean he's certainly on the shortlist - in this thread topic even more than Lemmon maybe too and at the very least he is the most underrated (or under-mentioned?) great American actor ever and that's .............Jason Robards. A 5 time Emmy nominee and winner, 2 time Oscar winner, an 8 time Tony nominee and 1 time winner - somewhat inflated in the era he worked on the stage in but still he could have had even more maybe - that's 4 times Denzel Washington's nominations and almost 3 times Pacino's too......I mean it's amazing no matter how you look at it. In films he specialized in real life people Ben Bradlee, Howard Hughes, Dashiell Hammett and if those achievements aren't enough he had a great screen farewell role in Magnolia too. I'm not so sure I'd rank him #1 for Americans myself but you basically have to put him in that running across all mediums - he distinguished himself in all 3 - maybe film hurts him because he didn't cut a huge path in it........but he was always exemplary in the actual work and always uniquely himself. Robards is kind of in Fredric March territory: beloved by the industry and critics when he was alive, but (unfairly) overlooked today. Both men have film classics to their name, but they made their real bones on the stage, and not much exists today to showcase their greatness there. Robards is kind of America's answer to Paul Scofield in that respect.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 28, 2018 10:34:23 GMT
Mentioning a guy who was mentioned in the first post as one of the all time American greats (even though he's Canadian close enough) Christopher Plummer.
Plummer approached even Robards on stage - indeed he's got 1 more Tony than him, and he has a Tony for a classical role too (Cyrano), a solid TV career with 1 Emmy acting win, 3 Supporting Oscar nods and 1 win (all in his 80s - breaks his own record every time he's nodded now) and lots of other memorable roles.
An exemplary and long career across all mediums - maybe a stronger TV resume would separate him from the pack in this thread more - but Robards, Lemmon, Duvall, etc. is a pretty good pack after all.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 29, 2018 12:22:02 GMT
Switching back to one English and one American actor who maybe late in life are sort of set up to challenge the living leaders at least in their country by generation- Kevin Kline and Ralph Fiennes.
Both have made an impact in film, Kline has won, and both are theaters workhorses - Tony Winners - and among the best of their generation there (Fiennes is doing more this year). But now as they get older, TV is going to hold more for them and ace supporting film roles might be there too. TV is where these guys could really make a big move - although I'm really talking Fiennes here as Kline is older, 70.
Well, think about how one role could change how we perceive Fiennes - a two time Oscar nominee an obvious big talent with obvious seriousness of purpose - gifted in comedy and drama and then think how likely he might be to do it - especially on TV. I think it's very likely - and as with Anthony Hopkins or Ian McKellen the 3rd acts of British actors careers very often pay off big time.
I keep going back to Cumberbatch who is like Fiennes but younger - but has the absolutely stellar TV career and I'm thinking Fiennes could do spectacularly there.
|
|